You are viewing jfs

Circle, Triangle, Square - Thoughts [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
John

[ website | Flay and DeVille's Circus of Marvels ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Outward bound links| Witchwood Workshop Planet Angel Venom and Bootle Transports of Delight 43 Things del.icio.us ]
[WebComics| Questionable Content Order of the Stick Unshelved Home on the Strange ]

Thoughts [Aug. 24th, 2012|01:43 pm]
Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry
[Tags|, , ]

The next time I mention that I'm anti-Royalist / Republican and someone trots out the line "but they're trained from birth to the role, bred to be ambassadors for the country" someone remind me to mention Harry Hewitt?


Posted via m.livejournal.com.

LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: sushidog
2012-08-24 12:47 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I would actually really like William to abdicate when it's his turn, just to see what would happen; whether Harry would be allowed to take the throne (undermining the whole concept of hereditary royalty), or whether they'd just quietly get his to abdicate too, in favour of one of the uncles (or aunts; how is it that n the 21st century, under a long-reigning queen, Anne is still bumped down the succession by her younger brothers and their offspring, including their female offspring?) or cousins.
[User Picture]From: valkyriekaren
2012-08-24 12:55 pm (UTC)

(Link)

If that happened it would go to Prince Andrew (Duke of York), and then to his daughter Beatrice. Royal male primogeniture was abolished last year but not retroactively (which sort of makes sense, as much as it ever did).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne
[User Picture]From: sushidog
2012-08-24 01:06 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I didn't realise they'd finally got rid of male-preference inheritance for the throne; that's cool. Although it seems a little unfair not to make it retroactive; I think Anne would be a rather good monarch.
[User Picture]From: valkyriekaren
2012-08-24 01:30 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I think making it retroactive would open up an enormous can of worms!
[User Picture]From: sushidog
2012-08-24 01:32 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Well, I think it would be fair to limit it to the offspring of the current monarch (otherwise it gets all sorts of complicated), but I say bring Anne back into the succession! :-)
[User Picture]From: november_girl
2012-08-25 04:42 pm (UTC)

(Link)

By all accounts she'd rather not be there.
[User Picture]From: jfs
2012-08-24 01:58 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I'm geeky enough to have worked out that, until Kate sprogs, Anne is 10th in line to the throne. That's ludicrous.
[User Picture]From: valkyriekaren
2012-08-24 02:36 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Yes. More full line of succession is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne

(They don't need to die to be excluded, by the way. Just marry Catholics. Or convert to Catholicism.)
[User Picture]From: misspotsitt
2012-08-24 02:44 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Oh my god! The person who is 58th in line to the throne is called Tallulah!
[User Picture]From: valkyriekaren
2012-08-24 03:15 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I know! Queen Tallulah!

What about King Cassius or Queen Zenouska?
[User Picture]From: agentinfinity
2012-08-24 05:34 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I thought they abolished the catholic rule when the abolished the male rule. They were talking about it at the time, but may have changed their minds - not sure.
[User Picture]From: valkyriekaren
2012-08-25 01:49 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Apparently not - to do so would require the disestablishment of the Church of England, or at least the removal of the requirement that the monarch be head of the Church.
[User Picture]From: pauln
2012-08-24 02:57 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Agreed. Though it's equally ludicrous that her daughter is listed in the full line as "Mrs Michael Tindall". From the impression I get of Zara, I'd think she'd rather object to that.
[User Picture]From: valkyriekaren
2012-08-24 12:51 pm (UTC)

(Link)

*giggles*

At least he was playing strip billiards. That's classy.
[User Picture]From: misspotsitt
2012-08-24 02:26 pm (UTC)

(Link)

While I do totally agree with you (I am not a royalist, though I did like M&S' Jubilee apple and strawberry juice...) I think as he gets older Harry is starting to look a little bit like the royal family. I used to think that he looked a lot like James Hewitt, but I think now he looks like his Diana's brother and a little bit like Prince Phillip when he was young.
[User Picture]From: jfs
2012-08-24 02:41 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I'm being unfair. Hewitt's affair with Diana didn't start until after Harry was born.
[User Picture]From: misspotsitt
2012-08-24 02:43 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Did it not? I didn't know that.

Am I right in thinking she had an affair with Will Carling, or did I make that up?
[User Picture]From: pauln
2012-08-24 03:04 pm (UTC)

(Link)

That was alleged by parts of the press around the time of Carling's divorce, but he has denied it. (source: wikipedia article on Carling)
[User Picture]From: pauln
2012-08-24 03:08 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Ah. So I should stop referring to how much he looks like his father, then.
[User Picture]From: sushidog
2012-08-24 03:20 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Well, there are several versions of the story floating around; including that the affair originally started before Harry came along, but that it was kept quiet for obvious reasons.
Which may be entirely true, obviously.
But he really does look a lot like Hewitt.
[User Picture]From: ellefurtle
2012-08-24 05:41 pm (UTC)

(Link)

He looks incredibly like Philip - more and more so as he gets older. You seem to be the only other person I've spoken to who sees this!
[User Picture]From: misspotsitt
2012-08-24 05:54 pm (UTC)

(Link)

My mother thinks so too.
[User Picture]From: mr_h_r_hughes
2012-08-24 07:18 pm (UTC)

(Link)

No he absolutely does, you're right.
[User Picture]From: cookwitch
2012-08-26 01:49 am (UTC)

(Link)

[User Picture]From: agentinfinity
2012-08-24 05:47 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Henry VIII was a younger son and look how well that turned out! ;-)

As an anarcho-monarchist (hehe) I would rather power be invested in a random figurehead than more power be invested in a president because most politicians are power grabbing scum and they are now all also upper middle class and lawyers and from public school. Far more dangerous to have the illusion of equality or meritocracy. Plus the lords is the only thing that stopped New Labour tearing up hundreds of years worth of our civil liberties and pissing over the remains. So I'd like to keep them too. Less power for politicians generally is just good in my opinion. In fact less power in one place generally is good. Having a monarch as well as parliament spreads it out a bit and discourages hubris. I'm not saying that's a perfect system - I don't really believe there is such a thing in practice, just a less bad one than not having one.

Alternatively, we could go for Mr Chesterton's Napoleon of Notting Hill approach.

[User Picture]From: november_girl
2012-08-25 04:44 pm (UTC)

(Link)

This.
[User Picture]From: irdm
2012-09-02 11:45 am (UTC)

(Link)

Not quite "this" but pretty close.


I've always felt that the traditional Monarch employment contract (you have a job for life, we may thus cut off your head at Tyburn if you mess up badly or are a blatent twat) was a good incentive to think big.

And I like a second house full of long term thinkers who rightfull say "Oi! PM! No. You're having a laff with this"

Democracy is a great idea apart from all the politicians they let be involved.
[User Picture]From: invisible_al
2012-08-24 06:07 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I mean a squaddie getting drunk and getting his kit off in Vegas, how unexpected.
[User Picture]From: mr_h_r_hughes
2012-08-24 07:19 pm (UTC)

(Link)

*snort*
[User Picture]From: ed_fortune
2012-08-25 10:36 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I was amazed. :)
[User Picture]From: november_girl
2012-08-25 04:47 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I loved Boris Johnson's comment that "I think it'd be disgraceful if a chap wasn't allowed to have a bit of fun in Las Vegas. The real scandal would be if you went all the way to Las Vegas and you didn't misbehave in some trivial way." So true.
[User Picture]From: irdm
2012-09-02 11:47 am (UTC)

(Link)

It wouldn't have happened in the Good Old Days.

By which I like to think I mean some soliders with guns would have turned up at The Sun offices...